Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-6-2013, 12:24 AM   #1
Spenner
Forum User
Sectional Moderator
 
Spenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 2,391
Send a message via MSN to Spenner Send a message via Skype™ to Spenner
Default Anslem's Ontological Argument

This is an interesting argument. Though it contains a fatal flaw, something quite trivial. What is wrong with the argument, and, what part of it is wrong?

Anselms Ontological Argument:

1) Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5) We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists.

By following the rules of the argument it would conclude that God must exist, which is some interesting trickery. So, what do you make of it?
__________________

Spenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 12:37 AM   #2
ilikexd
FFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,137
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenner View Post
2) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
2) says that the idea of God exists in the mind, not God itself.
ilikexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 02:29 AM   #3
Spenner
Forum User
Sectional Moderator
 
Spenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 2,391
Send a message via MSN to Spenner Send a message via Skype™ to Spenner
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Well that was easy. Thread done.

I should have rephrased it to make it less obvious, which is what was done someplace else : I
__________________

Spenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 03:11 AM   #4
reuben_tate
Kawaii Desu Ne?
Sectional ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
reuben_tate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Kawaiian Island~
Age: 27
Posts: 4,130
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.
__________________
AMA: http://ask.fm/benguino

Not happening now! Don't click to join!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenner View Post
(^)> peck peck says the heels
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX
And god made ben, and realized he was doomed to miss. And said it was good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakvvv666
awww :< crushing my dreams; was looking foward to you attempting to shoot yourself point blank and missing
reuben_tate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 03:16 AM   #5
Spenner
Forum User
Sectional Moderator
 
Spenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 2,391
Send a message via MSN to Spenner Send a message via Skype™ to Spenner
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by reuben_tate View Post
This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.
Making a rock that an omnipotent figure cannot lift is a contradiction-- by definition it is able to move said rock

What could you not do if you are omnipotent? Well theoretically there shouldn't be anything, because anything that it cannot do just contradicts the definition of the omnipotent. You could get paradoxical and say that "God cannot destroy God and then create God", technically it should be able to still do that though. I'm sure there's a better example out there.
__________________


Last edited by Spenner; 09-6-2013 at 03:21 AM..
Spenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 03:28 AM   #6
mi40
FFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
mi40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,538
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

god is dead
__________________
mi40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 03:36 AM   #7
ilikexd
FFR Simfile AuthorD7 Elite KeysmasherFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,137
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by reuben_tate View Post
This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.
This depends on your definition of 'omnipotent'. It doesn't necessarily mean capable of performing logical absurdities.

It's like saying God can create a system of equations that he can't solve. It's not that God would be incapable per se, it's that such capability can't exist.

An omnipotent being creating an object he could not move can be thought of as an inconsistent system of equations; the premises, immovable rock and omnipotent being, are inconsistent and cannot simultaneously exist.

Last edited by ilikexd; 09-6-2013 at 03:52 AM..
ilikexd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 05:16 AM   #8
reuben_tate
Kawaii Desu Ne?
Sectional ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
reuben_tate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Kawaiian Island~
Age: 27
Posts: 4,130
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Yeah, the counter arguments usually tackles the definition of omnipotent. The most common say that god doesn't need necessarily be completely omnipotent, but that instead he is capable of doing anything "in his nature", or in other words, capable of doing whatever he wants.

@spenner: I thought I implied that, I guess my explanation wasn't clear. Basically the "proof" shows that nothing can be omnipotent and since god must be an omnipotent being, then he can't exist.
__________________
AMA: http://ask.fm/benguino

Not happening now! Don't click to join!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenner View Post
(^)> peck peck says the heels
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX
And god made ben, and realized he was doomed to miss. And said it was good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakvvv666
awww :< crushing my dreams; was looking foward to you attempting to shoot yourself point blank and missing
reuben_tate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 02:25 PM   #9
Spenner
Forum User
Sectional Moderator
 
Spenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 2,391
Send a message via MSN to Spenner Send a message via Skype™ to Spenner
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by reuben_tate View Post
Yeah, the counter arguments usually tackles the definition of omnipotent. The most common say that god doesn't need necessarily be completely omnipotent, but that instead he is capable of doing anything "in his nature", or in other words, capable of doing whatever he wants.

@spenner: I thought I implied that, I guess my explanation wasn't clear. Basically the "proof" shows that nothing can be omnipotent and since god must be an omnipotent being, then he can't exist.
Another reason the example is not clear is because I don't believe such an object has the necessity to exist, kinda like what ilikeit was getting at. Again though when you define omnipotent as being able to do ANYTHING, that is strongly adhered to even when you suggest that it do something it cannot. It's like saying infinity + 1 cannot be greater than infinity, but theoretically it's an idea that there is one greater integer than all the numbers there is.

I'm not a huge math nerd but I'm pretty sure ∞+1 is perfectly valid. If we could assume an anything-doing omnipotent being to be ∞, (that is, contains all the actions that it could) and for it to make something it "cannot" make to be ∞+1, it's still theoretically part of the same system. Otherwise, perhaps the impossible objects are already inside "∞", by definition of it, because infinity already contains ∞+1 technically.
__________________

Spenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 09:55 PM   #10
kaiten123
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 1,114
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

this is the first time i've seen 2 or more people discuss this argument without at least one of them starting to laugh almost instantly at how terrible it is.

Last edited by kaiten123; 09-6-2013 at 10:13 PM..
kaiten123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-6-2013, 10:33 PM   #11
qqwref
stepmania archaeologist
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
qqwref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Age: 31
Posts: 4,079
Send a message via AIM to qqwref Send a message via Skype™ to qqwref
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Replacing "god" with anything else makes it pretty clear that this argument fails (but not why). The best possible girlfriend must also exist, since that would make her even better!

Basically the problem is that the God in the argument is a hypothetical concept - it must be, because to avoid circular reasoning we cannot start off by assuming God exists as a real entity. So all properties are hypothetical - if we can reason that our hypothetical God must have a property P, then we really mean that if God existed he would have to have P. Steps 4 and 5 don't actually end up with "therefore, God exists in reality" but "therefore, this hypothetical concept God we are reasoning about would exist in reality". This existence-in-reality property we are talking about is still a hypothetical property of a hypothetical object. So, if God existed, he would have to exist in reality. Not very useful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenner View Post
I'm not a huge math nerd but I'm pretty sure ∞+1 is perfectly valid..
Not really, normally*. You can "add" 1 to infinity - it's not really adding since infinity isn't actually a number, although you can do something like ask about the size of a set A defined as the set of all numbers that are either integers or 1/2 - but the result is no different from infinity.

*There are other mathematical systems such as ordinal numbers that allow expressions such as ∞+1, and make them different from ∞, but that only has meaning within that system, not within math in general.
__________________
Stepmania Song Search - 1518 packs and counting!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerax View Post
Repeating, please no retarded files that aren't even going with the song
qqwref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-7-2013, 03:02 PM   #12
PaperclipGames
Mrow~
FFR Veteran
 
PaperclipGames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 28
Posts: 643
Send a message via MSN to PaperclipGames Send a message via Skype™ to PaperclipGames
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by reuben_tate View Post
This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.
If God exists and can do anything, he can still lift a rock that he cannot lift.

He simply can and cannot, at the same time. And if you say that's impossible, I'll simply mention again that god can do anything - apparently, breaking logic as well.
__________________

853 AAAs | 1282 FCs | 316 TPs | 7 FMO AAAs
Skype: paperclipgames | Steam: alegiano | Last.fm: Alegiano | Ask.fm: Clippysan | Facebook: LINK
Best AAAs: Exciting Hyper Highspeed Star (69), Nous (69), Pure Ruby (68), Heavenly Spores (68), Ambient Angels (66), Within Life (66), Defection (66) Southern Cross (65)
PaperclipGames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-7-2013, 03:08 PM   #13
reuben_tate
Kawaii Desu Ne?
Sectional ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
reuben_tate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Kawaiian Island~
Age: 27
Posts: 4,130
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Rip logic

Edit: if anyone wants to know, I am somewhat religious. I am a Christian and I define my own denomination. Although, I will admit, I do question my faith but I still believe in some type of greater power in the universe, whoever or whatever it may be.
__________________
AMA: http://ask.fm/benguino

Not happening now! Don't click to join!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenner View Post
(^)> peck peck says the heels
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX
And god made ben, and realized he was doomed to miss. And said it was good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakvvv666
awww :< crushing my dreams; was looking foward to you attempting to shoot yourself point blank and missing

Last edited by reuben_tate; 09-7-2013 at 03:14 PM..
reuben_tate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-7-2013, 04:02 PM   #14
SlayerApocalypse666
Banned
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 324
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperclipGames View Post
If God exists and can do anything, he can still lift a rock that he cannot lift.

He simply can and cannot, at the same time. And if you say that's impossible, I'll simply mention again that god can do anything - apparently, breaking logic as well.
That made me laugh, oh god, thx !
SlayerApocalypse666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-7-2013, 09:24 PM   #15
Spenner
Forum User
Sectional Moderator
 
Spenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 2,391
Send a message via MSN to Spenner Send a message via Skype™ to Spenner
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by reuben_tate View Post
I am a Christian
Quote:
Originally Posted by reuben_tate View Post
Rip logic
You're tellin me

Honestly though, no beef, I'm sure you're insightful enough to have rationality. As long as the earth isn't 6000 years to you bro.

But yeah clearly this logic fails right away because idea is being paralleled to real things. It's kind of interesting to think that this has apparently made people's heads hurt for generations, but I guess at a much earlier time it would have appeared to be a more valid logic. It makes me wonder who else adapted that kind of philosophy.
__________________

Spenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-7-2013, 09:40 PM   #16
Reincarnate
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Sectional ModeratorFFR Veteran
 
Reincarnate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

omnipotence is problematic to define anyway

even so, there's no evidence that such an entity exists, and besides, it isn't necessary. even if such a being were to exist, how come it exists? if you say that entity needs no explanation, when why not the universe without an omnipotent being, etc?

God, in this context, is just a placeholder for human ignorance and our need to give an answer to something.
Reincarnate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-8-2013, 11:16 AM   #17
SlayerApocalypse666
Banned
FFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 324
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenner View Post
It makes me wonder who else adapted that kind of philosophy.
Much people, millions i'd say........
SlayerApocalypse666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-9-2013, 02:01 PM   #18
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

The fatal flaw in Anselm's ontological proof isn't that the idea of God exists in the mind versus God existing in the mind. That's a deliberate misunderstanding of the premise.

The idea that one has is of God existing as a being of which nothing is greater.

The actual fatal flaw in Anselm's proof is the claim that something which exists in the mind and reality is "greater" than something which exists only in the mind.

Issues around the definition of "greater" aside, there's no objective basis that that greater/better things are both conceivable and exist. One could argue for example, that the idea of having cancer is better than having cancer.

The bit you have to take on faith is that one. That "real" things are "greater" in a strict and objective sense than "Theoretical" ones, which is not proven.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-9-2013, 02:04 PM   #19
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Also, on the subject of omniscience and omnipotence.

Omnipotence is logically impossible for the same reasons that were already stated here. When you apply the prefix 'omni' to something, you need only one counterpoint, no matter how absurd, to disprove that status. If you grant that God is simply unimaginably more powerful than we are, you get them into Godlike status without them falling afoul of the logical impossibility.

Omniscience is certainly possible, but we as humans should hope nothing has it. Because omniscience, a complete and perfect knowledge of all things, basically removes free will. The assumption of an omniscient God in the christian sense implies one that knows the past present and future. And if God already knows every decision we are going to make, those decisions cease to be free.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-9-2013, 03:22 PM   #20
Spenner
Forum User
Sectional Moderator
 
Spenner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 28
Posts: 2,391
Send a message via MSN to Spenner Send a message via Skype™ to Spenner
Default Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
The fatal flaw in Anselm's ontological proof isn't that the idea of God exists in the mind versus God existing in the mind. That's a deliberate misunderstanding of the premise.

The idea that one has is of God existing as a being of which nothing is greater.

The actual fatal flaw in Anselm's proof is the claim that something which exists in the mind and reality is "greater" than something which exists only in the mind.

Issues around the definition of "greater" aside, there's no objective basis that that greater/better things are both conceivable and exist. One could argue for example, that the idea of having cancer is better than having cancer.

The bit you have to take on faith is that one. That "real" things are "greater" in a strict and objective sense than "Theoretical" ones, which is not proven.
A good point. However I can totally see how back in the day when this argument was conceived that, in this context, God is better off to exist for real than to be only a figment of the imagination. Obviously not an objective point though, and doesn't make it any more true just because of the social circumstances.

I think it's definitely naive to have the assumption that something must be real to be greater (and vice versa in a lot of cases like cancer). The essence of buddhism conveys to people the same kind of feelings one would perhaps get if they put their faith in something existing, but with ideas all being internalized in the mind (for the most part, the more important aspects). But ye it really depends on the context of what it is.
__________________

Spenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution